A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

Extracts from a controversial sex education programme will be screened at a public meeting being held UPDATE: CANCELLED due to weather conditions in Worksop, Notts., to alert parents to the dangers of explicit sex education.

The programme under scrutiny is “Living and Growing”, produced by Channel 4. Used by Worksop primary schools as a resource to teach sex and relationships education (SRE), “Living and Growing” includes a cartoon of sexual intercourse, showing girls how to locate their clitoris and telling them that it feels nice when you touch it. This material is for children of seven to nine years of age.

Antonia Tully, the organiser of SPUC's Safe at School campaign, will advise parents that primary schools are under no legal obligation to deliver SRE, nor are they compelled to take advice from local authorities in their choice of programme for SRE. Antonia will speak at a public meeting organised by SPUC in Worksop on Wednesday 1 December, 7.30 pm, at The Crossing Church and Centre, Newcastle Street, Worksop.

Monday, 29 November 2010

"Dear brothers and sisters, our coming together this evening to begin the Advent journey is enriched by another important reason: with the entire Church, we want to solemnly celebrate a prayer vigil for unborn life. I wish to express my thanks to all who have taken up this invitation and those who are specifically dedicated to welcoming and safeguarding human life in different situations of fragility, especially in its early days and in its early stages."

“[T]here is no reason not to consider [the human embryo] a person from conception.”

"I urge the protagonists of politics, economic and social communications to do everything in their power to promote a culture which respects human life, to provide favorable conditions and support networks for the reception and development of life."

Pope Benedict echoed his vigil homily this morning in his address to the bishops of the Philippines on their ad limina visit. In a clear reference to the Reproductive Health bill which the bishops are fighting, Pope Benedict said [my emphases in bold]:

"Thanks to the Gospel's clear presentation of the truth about God and man, generations of zealous Filipino clergymen, religious and laity have promoted an ever more just social order. At times, this task of proclamation touches upon issues relevant to the political sphere. This is not surprising, since the political community and the Church, while rightly distinct, are nevertheless both at the service of the integral development of every human being and of society as a whole".

"At the same time, the Church's prophetic office demands that she be free 'to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine ... and also to pass moral judgments in those matters which regard public order whenever the fundamental human rights of a person or the salvation of souls requires it'. In the light of this prophetic task, I commend the Church in the Philippines for seeking to play its part in support of human life from conception until natural death, and in defence of the integrity of marriage and the family. In these areas you are promoting truths about the human person and about society which arise not only from divine revelation but also from natural law, an order which is accessible to human reason and thus provides a basis for dialogue and deeper discernment on the part of all people of good will.”

Sunday, 28 November 2010

Malta, listed by the BBC as prohibiting abortion in all circumstances, has a clear-minded bishop, it seems, in Bishop Mario Grech, the bishop of Gozo (pictured).

He says that the education system may be abusing young people when it teaches them about contraception. (We have such abuse in schools here in Britain, including Catholic schools where it's taught with the co-operation of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales through their agency the Catholic Education Service and where children are also given access to abortion "services").

If Malta has other bishops like Bishop Grech, who are clear-minded and outspoken, they have a far better chance of maintaining their law on abortion.

Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected [My emphasis]. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

There is hard evidence for Pope John Paul II's teaching, as I have mentioned before. Professor David Paton, who holds a chair in Economics at Nottingham University, has shown in a paper entitled "The economics of family planning and underage conceptions" (this paper is not available free online, but if you would like a copy please contact me) that family planning, and increased access to it, increases the likelihood that teenagers will engage in sexual activity. Prof. Paton says: "I find no evidence that greater access to family planning has reduced underage conceptions or abortions. Indeed, there is some evidence that greater access is associated with an increase in underage conceptions..."

Saturday, 27 November 2010

Anyone concerned about the real threat of dying as a result of euthanasia in Britain should read Peter Saunders's informative post about a new "independent" commission on assisted dying. (Peter is pictured right.) He writes:

"The fact that an ‘independent’ commission on ‘assisted dying’ is to be chaired by a peer who just last year tried to relax the law on assisted suicide, is being funded by a celebrity novelist who is passionately pushing for a change in the law and was dreamt up by a leading campaign group will certainly raise eyebrows."

The truth is that euthanasia threatens all of us in Britain:

The Mental Capacity Act, in certain circumstances, requires doctors to abandon their patients.

There is a policy of silent euthanasia, not least through the Liverpool Care Pathway, as leading doctors have warned

Disabled people are increasingly worried by extreme proposals being put forward by pro-euthanasia legislators

Dame Mary Warnock, the anti-life philosopher in the House of Lords, argues that certain people with disabling conditions have a duty to die prematurely. (She has said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service.")

The Director of Public Prosecutions has published a prosecuting policy which effectively decriminalises assisted suicide in a wide range of circumstances.

We have celebrity-led campaigns in favour of assisted suicide which get significant media coverage.

We have high profile court cases which fill the airwaves and serious mainstream newspapers, like the Daily Telegraph, with anti-life propaganda.

You might want to bookmark Peter Saunders's post for future reference. We can fully expect the media, like the Daily Telegraph, to weigh behind the "independent" commission at its launch next Tuesday and when its conclusions are published in a report next October (2011).

Friday, 26 November 2010

Today I am in the beautiful, historic city of Torun, Poland. I have been addressing the third international Congress organized by the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin and the International Gilson Society (USA) at the Higher School of Social and Media Culture in Torun.

During my talk I spoke about the maelstrom of carefully created confusion in the mass media about Catholic teaching on condoms, generated by prominent opponents of the church's teaching, i.e. opponents within the Catholic Church (not least in Britain). I said:

This week especially, my heart breaks for my children and for my grandchildren; my heart breaks for the children of Britain and for children throughout the world. My heart breaks as I witness leading figures in the Vatican fomenting universal confusion on Catholic teaching on the use of condoms following Pope Benedict’s interview on that subject in the new publication: "Light of the World”.

In Britain, also, leading public figures in the name of the Catholic Church are misrepresenting its unchanging and unchangeable magisterial teaching on the transmission of human life. Opponents of Catholic teaching on the use of condoms are turning the clock back for humanity. They are turning the clock back to the Crucifixion when all of Christ’s followers and apostles deserted Him, except a few.

I address now the successors of the apostles, the Catholic bishops of the world. As the leader of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the oldest pro-life organization in the world, I especially address you, Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and through you, the bishops of the world.

“Countless children, perhaps my own grandchildren, will be deliberately corrupted as a result of the exploitation and misrepresentation of your interview about condoms by opponents of Catholic teaching within the Catholic Church. As a result of the worldwide media’s perception of your interview, and as a result of policies and legislation enacted on the basis of a false representations of Catholic teaching, the corruption of young children and the destruction of countless children in the womb will go hand in hand. Countless women will be exploited by selfish or insensitive or brutal husbands and boyfriends, as a result of the confusion generated in the mass media by opponents, within the Church, of Catholic teaching on the use of condoms."

I reminded the Polish congress that last month Cardinal Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, told a pro-life conference in Rome:

“The attack on the innocent and defenceless life of the unborn has its origin in an erroneous view of human sexuality, which attempts to eliminate, by mechanical or chemical means, the essentially procreative nature of the conjugal act ... ”.

I explained that the world's rejection of the prophetic teaching of the church on the inseparability of the unitive and procreative elements of marital acts had led to the imposition, in Britain, on families, of access to induced abortion and birth control drugs and devices to children at school, including Catholic schools, without parental knowledge or consent. I explained that this was happening with the co-operation of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales. "The artificial separation of the unitive and procreative elements of marital acts ... underpins today's culture of death", I said.

The government's approach to sex and relationships education included in the White Paper on Schools issued yesterday is deeply concerning.

As Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media this morning:

"The Schools White Paper refers to 'high-quality' sex and relationships education, apparently ignoring the corrupting and depraved kind of lessons to which very many children are now subjected. Parents have recently condemned a widely-used primary school SRE programme as 'kiddie porn'. SRE has become yet another avenue for sexualising the culture in which children have to live, and SRE is a main vehicle for teaching young teenagers how to access abortion without reference to their parents. Parents must not let their sense of outrage at this be assuaged by bland assurances from politicians and well-meaning teachers. The lives of unborn children and the health and happiness of many thousands of young people are at stake.

"Furthermore, the government seems set to ignore the research which demonstrates the comprehensive failure of typical UK classroom sex education to improve outcomes like abortion rates. The evidence must be recognised, and the policies must be changed."

UK pro-lifers concerned about the government's approach should email political@spuc.org.uk for more information and action points.

Catholic Diocese of Hallam
Bishop John Rawsthorne will lead a Vigil Service for all Nascent Human Life on Saturday 27 November following the 6.30 pm evening Mass at the Cathedral Church of St. Marie, Norfolk Row, Sheffield, S1 2JB.

Catholic Diocese of Leeds
Vigil for all nascent human life will be held in the presence of the missionary image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Leeds Cathedral, Great George Street, Leeds, LS2 8BE, on Saturday, 27th November, from 12.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. followed by Saturday vigil Mass at 6 p.m. celebrated by Bishop Arthur Roche

Invoking the Lord’s protection over every human being called into existence. 3pm on Saturday 27th November at St Mary’s Cathedral with Eucharistic Adoration and Sacrament of Reconciliation
6.30pm Mass Bishop Terry Drainey will preside

Catholic diocese of Motherwell
Sat 27 Nov: all-night vigil from 7pm Sat until 9am Sun, in the Adoration Chapel of St John the Baptist church, Uddingston. In the same church on Sun 28 Nov: Rosary and Benediction, 4pm. Sister Roseanne Reddy of the Sisters of the Gospel of Life will speak at all weekend Masses.

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

Jack Valero (pictured) and Austen Ivereigh, the co-ordinators of Catholic Voices, have been busy sporting open-neck collars in a series of television interviews on Pope Benedict's comments on condoms, about which I blogged on Sunday morning. In those interviews, both Mr Valero and Dr Ivereigh claim that the Church has never spoken against the use of condoms outside of marriage. Mr Valero even made the ridiculous claim that:

“There isn't a specific teaching [by the Church] about condoms"

The Valero-Ivereigh claims are simply false as a matter of historical fact. I list below their false claims, and follow that with some statements from Church authorities throughout the ages. (Although some of those statements do not mention barrier methods of contraception such as condoms, they are all applicable to condoms as condom use is by its nature contraceptive.) The use of condoms (or other contraceptives) in extra-marital genital acts is an aggravation of the principle sin of engaging in extra-marital genital acts.

The fact that Mr Valero and Dr Ivereigh are publicly and repeatedly contradicting this truth of Catholic sexual ethics is one of a growing number of reasons why they should be disqualified from any representative position in any official or unofficial Catholic or pro-life/pro-family organisation. Readers should remember that these men deny that there is any such thing as a liberal bishop (Mr Valero) and deny that The Tablet is a vehicle for dissent (Dr Ivereigh).

Why is the Catholic Church's teaching on condom use (and the Valero-Ivereigh campaign misrepresenting that teaching) important for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in paragraph 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

The false claim by Jack Valero and Austen Ivereigh that the Church has never spoken out against the use of condoms outside of marriage

"The Church never said to a prostitute, “Don’t use a condom”, the Church has said “Being a prostitute is not a good thing, ‘Don’t be a prostitute’. It didn’t say to people ‘Don’t use a condom if you are having sex outside of marriage, it said, ‘Don’t have sex outside of marriage’ ... There isn't a specific teaching about condoms."

“I think the Church never said to people who were having sex outside of marriage: ‘Don’t use a condom’, but ‘Don’t have sex outside of marriage’. It would say to a prostitute: ‘Don’t be a prostitute’, it wouldn’t say: ‘Don’t use a condom’ ... [T]here’s been no specific teaching [by the Church] about condoms.”

“[T]here isn’t actually a written-down doctrine [of the Church] on condoms ... [The Church has] never said that in a particular case it’s wrong to use a condom to protect somebody ... [The Church] doesn’t say to a man sleeping around: 'Don’t use a condom', it says: 'Don’t sleep around'
...
In the particular case which the Pope talks about in the book, he talks about a male prostitute ... [T]hough the act is bad in itself, not because of the condom – the condom itself may be a good thing...
...
[T]he way the Church looks after people is very good in Africa, you’ve got lots of nuns and priests and so on looking after people, and if in a particular case they think that a condom will protect then that may be OK, but they always look after people very well."

"[For] people who might be engaging in risky sexual behaviour, in other words, who aren't listening to the Church's message, actually [using a condom] might be the right and responsible thing to do in order to prevent infection
...
A lot of people have been saying - wrongly - that the Church says to any infected person, 'Never use a condom'. In fact the Church has never said that. People have wrongly interpreted the Church's ban on contraception as also applying in those circumstances."

"[T]he Church does not say to [serodiscordant married couples] ‘Do not use a condom’ nor does it say ‘Use a condom’. That is a very, very difficult ethical decision for that couple to make and the Church accompanies them in that...".

Statements by Church authorities throughout the centuries which rule out the use of condoms and other contraceptives outside of marriage (my emphases in bold):

The bishops of the United States, 1976: "In contraceptive intercourse the procreative or life-giving meaning is deliberately separated from its love-giving meaning and rejected; the wrongness of such an act lies in the rejection of this value." In other words, contraception is wrong in itself, not only in the context of marriage.

The bishops of France, November 1968, pastoral note on Humanae Vitae: "Contraception can never be a good. It is always a disorder..."

Decretals of Burchard, an influential collection of canon law, A.D. 1020: "Have you done what some women are accustomed to doing when they fornicate...if they have not yet conceived they contrive not to conceive? If you have done so, or consented to this, or taught it, you must do penance for ten years on legal ferial days." (num. 19; PL 140, 972)

Second Council of Braga, A.D. 572 : "If any woman...contrives to make sure she does not conceive, either in adultery or in legitimate intercourse...such women and their accomplices in these crimes shall do penance for ten years. (Canon 77; Mansi IX, 858).

St Augustine, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 419: "[I]f he does not control himself, let him enter into lawful wedlock, so that he may not beget children in disgrace or avoid having offspring by a more degraded form of intercourse." (De Conjugiis Adulterinis 2, 12; CSEL 41, 396)

St John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 390, referring to men who use prostitutes: "Why do you sow [w]here there are medicines of sterility? ... [F]or she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God, and fight with His laws? What is a curse, do you seek as if it were a blessing?" Professor John T. Noonan, author of a famous history of Catholic teaching on contraception, has written about this sermon: "[T]he reason given for condemning contraception is equally applicable whether contraception occurs in fornication or in marriage."

St Jerome, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 384: "I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall...Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness." (letter 22 to Eustochium)

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

It's unacceptable, to put it mildly, that Bishop McMahon, the chairman of the Catholic Education Service of England and Wales (CESEW), and Archbishop Nichols, its former chairman and the archbishop of Westminster, continue to back the appointment last April of Greg Pope, the anti-life, anti-family former Member of Parliament, as deputy director of the CESEW.

Bishop McMahon has recently said in a letter to a correspondent on the matter:

“Mr Pope’s parliamentary voting record shows that for 62.5% of the divisions he voted in favour on life issues, and that for the remaining votes he was involved in tactical voting, often voting for the lesser of two evils”.

So let's look at Greg Pope's parliamentary record more closely, a fuller account of which I published earlier this year:

He voted against pro-life Angela Watkinson MP’s Ten Minute Rule bill. Mrs Watkinson’s bill would have required doctors providing contraception or abortion ‘services’ to a child under 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian. His anti-life, anti-parents, vote on this measure alone disqualifies him to be deputy director of the CESEW.

He also voted against pro-life Iain Duncan Smith MP’s amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill to reinstate the requirement for doctors to consider the child’s need for a father before a woman is given fertility treatment.

How can such votes, which are so hostile to a child’s best interests, be described as tactical votes or the lesser of two evils? They’re evil pure and simple.

Mr Pope describes himself as a “committed practising Catholic” who “very much” shares the Church’s opposition to abortion. His self-portrait, however, lacks all credibility in the light of the facts.

Quite apart from the votes mentioned above:

Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions calling for increased funding for international pro-abortion organizations, the inclusion of “reproductive health and family planning” within the Millennium Development goals, terms understood by the government to include abortion, and he signed motions praising national condom week, world population day, and the Labour Government’s Civil Partnership Bill.

He also supported the homosexual agenda as an MP, including voting against measures (popularly known as section 28) preventing local councils from promoting homosexuality, including the teaching in schools of the ‘acceptablility of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’”.

I believe that in the years to come the position adopted by the Catholic bishops on matters relating to sex education, on which I have often blogged, will be regarded as co-operation with a type of child abuse. As Eric Hester, a retired headteacher, put it to me today: the deliberate corruption of children is "pure evil" and, therefore, the support earlier this year from the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, via the Catholic Education Service, for the previous government's plans to make sex and relationships education compulsory from 5 to 16 years (with all that that involved) is also "pure evil".

Fortunately, thanks to a massive campaign by our supporters and by Catholic headteachers and clergy of various denominations, the previous government's plans, even with the Catholic bishops' support, were defeated. For the safety of our children, it's now essential that the Catholic Education Service is either reformed or closed down.

Monday, 22 November 2010

I am delighted by the news that five Anglican bishops and 50 Anglican clergy are in the first wave of people who wish to join the Ordinariate for former Anglicans established by Pope Benedict within the Catholic Church. As I said last December, I have no doubt that part of the impact of the Ordinariate will be greatly to strengthen Catholic witness on pro-life matters. Keith Newton, the Anglican bishop of Richborough, has been reported as saying that among his motivations for leaving the Church of England is that in the Church of England:

"There has been a more lax attitude towards moral issues. The whole question of blessing gay marriage – there is a lot of pressure for that to happen in the Church of England – abortion, and life and death issues."

I am particularly grateful for the pro-life witness of Archbishop John Hepworth (pictured), the primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), which has sought to join the Ordinariate. In July last year Dr Hepworth wrote:

"To procure the death of an unborn child is a heinous crime against the most defenceless person".

And in December last year, Dr Hepworth wrote, at the start of the Octave of the Holy Innocents:

"[L]et us take clear sight of the martyrs who are our Octave companions. Their echoes are all around us, in the destruction of innocent life, in the failure of episcopal teaching..."

I am unsurprised to learn that there is resistance within the Catholic establishment in England to the prospect of pro-life former Anglicans being given a special place within the Catholic Church. Tom Wright, the retired Anglican bishop of Durham, said in an interview earlier this month:

"Many of the Roman Catholic bishops that I know in England were not terribly happy at the thought that they might have to administer this kind of whole extra wrinkle on top of the complicated structure they've already got, and I did hear one Roman Catholic priest - how representative I don't know - saying we've got quite enough traditionalists in our own Church without having all yours as well."

Dr Wright's comment rings true. Catholic bishops in England and Wales sometimes leave the impression that are more like company managers concerned with admnistration than spiritual leaders concerned with saving lives and souls from the culture of death. As Cardinal-elect Raymond Burke said in his landmark speech in Rome last month, it is absolutely essential that the Catholic Church is led and run by bishops and priests who preach, teach and obey Magisterial teaching on pro-life and pro-family issues.

Sunday, 21 November 2010

Austen Ivereigh (pictured), the Max Clifford of Catholic dissent in England, is a far better at being a publicist for dissent from Catholic teaching than he is an accurate reporter on Catholic affairs.

I was not a bit surprised this morning to find Austen Ivereigh, a former editor of The Tablet (a weekly magazine which works to undermine Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life), at the centre of a maelstrom of carefully created confusion about what Pope Benedict actually said about condoms in a soon-to-be-published interview with the Pope.

How neatly he misrepresents the widely-reported extract from the interview in last night's Guardian. Ivereigh is quoted as saying:

"The church's teaching on contraception predates AIDS and predates new kinds of moral possibilities, which is that condoms can be used not as a means of preventing a conception but as a means of preventing transmission of a virus.

"Rome has been silent on this for some years. The difficulty has been how they can clarify this teaching without it looking like they are lifting the ban on contraception.

"It may well be that the pope has decided that this is the best way of doing it - through a book-length interview."

"Moral possibilities" Austen? I'm sure you are a sufficiently professional writer to have read the interview you're promoting. [By the way, let's make sure we all read the text and not the headlines of stories on the subject of the Papal interview. And let's all demand proper translations of what the Pope said.] Why then do you fail to point out that Pope Benedict is specifically reported as saying that "the use of condoms" is not a moral solution?

In the feeding frenzy of the world's media feverisly picking up such Ivereigh-esque misrepresentations of the Catholic Church's position on the use of condoms, few journalists will quote Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate published only last year in which he stated:

"The Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the married couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually, in distinction and in complementarity: a couple, therefore, that is open to life[27]. This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II's Encyclical Evangelium Vitae[28]. The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that 'a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized.'[29]"

Unlike an interview with a journalist, Caritas in Veritas is intended by Pope Benedict as a teaching document of the Catholic Church: a teaching document which points out that "the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality" is not a question "of purely individual morality" but forms part of "magisterial teaching" which "forcefully maintains" the "link between life ethics and social ethics". Following Pope Benedict's teaching document, I explained in my speech at the 4th pro-life world congress in Spain last year howthe artificial separation of the unitive and procreative elements of sexual intercourse is not only the basis of contraception, it's also the basis of early abortion and in vitro fertilisation. It underpins today's culture of death.

Pope Benedict, like other Catholics, is bound by the magisterium of the Church which he proclaims in Caritas in Veritate. He's not likely to promote a change to that teaching in an interview with a journalist a year later - and he doesn't do so.

Austen Ivereigh's latest intervention simply reinforces my opinion that he is seeking to redefine the common perception of what constitutes mainstream Catholicism, and that he should not be appointed to any representative position in any official or unofficial Catholic or pro-life/pro-family organisation.

Catholics could do worse than boycott any publication which makes use of his kind of misrepresentations of the Pope's position on condoms.

Saturday, 20 November 2010

Last week a committee of the Scottish Parliament recommended that the parliament reject Margo Macdonald's bill to allow assisted suicide. The Scottish Catholic Media Office (SCMO) says that the committee's report

"comes down firmly on the side of protecting the interests of society rather than allowing the notion of personal autonomy to be stretched to permit assisted suicide and euthanasia."

The bill will now be debated by the whole parliament next Thursday 25 November. It is vital that people in Scotlant contact their Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) to urge them to read the committee's report and accept the committee's recommendation to reject the bill.

The Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI) has produced a briefing on behalf of SPUC which explains why the bill and assisted suicide/euthanasia are wrong. People in Scotland may wish to use the briefing when writing to their MSPs.

Thursday, 18 November 2010

In the latest of a series of strong and significant recent statement on pro-life issues, Pope Benedict has today, in a message to the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, said:

"[T]he world of healthcare cannot divorce itself from moral rules, which must govern it in order to ensure it does not become inhuman ... [H]ealthcare justice must be one of the priorities on the agendas of governments and international institutions. Unfortunately, along with positive and encouraging results, opinions and schools of thought exist which harm this justice. I am thinking of questions such as those associated with so-called 'reproductive health', the use of artificial procreation techniques that involve the destruction of embryos, and legalised euthanasia. Love for justice, the defence of life from conception until natural end, must be supported and proclaimed, even if this means going against the tide. Fundamental ethical values are the shared heritage of universal morality and the basis for democratic coexistence"

Really? How about the right of innocent human beings not to be intentionally:

killed?

dismembered?

poisoned?

neglected to death?

And what about the right of women:

not to be sexually assaulted?

not to be forced to have an abortion?

to refuse sterilisation?

to refuse contraceptive implants?

to have more than one or two children?

Dr Cannold's denial of absolute legal and moral rights reveals the contempt in which the pro-abortion lobby holds even the most revered of principles if those principles even seem to get in the way of their ideological committment to the killing of unborn children. Dr Cannold should re-read the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which among other things declares that:

"recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"

"disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind"

"human rights should be protected by the rule of law"

"the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights"

"Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights"

"every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights"

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind"

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"

Properly understood, the right to life and other rights (such as personal autonomy) do not come into conflict and do not require balancing or compromising. There is an order and a hierarchy of rights: the right to life is first and foremost, and the other rights both flow from the right to life and serve the right to life. Although human goods other than life may be more precious, the possession of life is fundamental. Unless the right to life is guaranteed, all other rights are in danger of being violated and may become purely theoretical.

Conscientious objection, which is a fundamental human right recognised in international law, trumps any supposed right to abortion. Not only has a right to abortion never been recognised in international human rights law, the unborn child is in fact protected against abortion in international human rights law (in principle, though rarely in practice).

Dr Cannold's article is painfully out-of-date: last month the parliamentary assembly of Europe's premier human rights organisation, the Council of Europe, rejected her claims and passed a resolution saying:

"No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason."

Clearly we must keep up the battle as our opponents re-group after their Council of Europe drubbing. The pro-life movement, aided by church leaders throughout the world, need to run great campaigns in support of conscientious objection - by nurses, doctors, pharmacists, educationalists and any professional person or other person who may be under to pressure to participate in anti-life practices.

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Pope Benedict has given an address to a group of Brazilian bishops, in which he focused upon the role of episcopal conferences, speaking of individual bishops'

"primary responsibility to feed ... the flock of their particular Church" (N.b. In canon law 'particular Church' means 'diocese')

The Pope went on to tell the Brazilian bishops that an episcopal conference:

"must avoid becoming a parallel reality or substituting the ministry of each individual bishop; in other words, it must not change his relationship with his particular Church and with the college of bishops, nor become the intermediary between the bishop and the See of Peter.

When you come together in your meetings, in the faithful exercise of your doctrinal function, you must study above all the most effective and appropriate means to present the universal Magisterium to the people entrusted to your care. ... You must also consider emerging questions, in order then to guide people's consciences to find adequate solutions to the new problems posed by social and cultural transformations".

"[Some of today's problems] require the joint action of bishops: the promotion and protection of faith and morals ... relations with civil authorities, the defence of human life from conception to natural end, the sanctity of the family and of marriage between a man and a woman, the right of parents to educate their children [...]

"[T]he counsellors and structures of the episcopal conference exist to serve the bishops, not to replace them."

"[T]he episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated ... No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Ratzinger Report", 1992)

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Today at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Pat Buckley, lobbying on behalf of SPUC, was once again in the forefront of the struggle against abortion and in leading efforts to uphold solemn international human rights agreements which defend the right to life from conception until natural death.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) during its 45th session (1 – 19 November 2010), held a Day of General Discussion (DGD) on the right to sexual and reproductive health in accordance with articles 12 and 10 (2) of the Covenant. The day was to provide an opportunity to exchange views and to garner insights from practitioners and academic experts. The day consisted of four panels on the following themes:

Definitions and elements of the right to sexual and reproductive health;

Cross-cutting issues and groups in focus;

Legal aspects and State obligations; and

Conclusions.

Pat Buckley was present at this meeting, having travelled from New York where he has been working flat out on behalf of the unborn for three weeks. Several weeks earlier Pat had submitted a paper to the CESCR outlining SPUC’s position:

“The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) asserts that the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has no authority under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to issue a general comment on the right to sexual and reproductive health. Furthermore, even if the CESCR did possess such authority pursuant to the ICESCR, a right to sexual and reproductive health does not encompass a right to abortion.”

Pat gave a telephone interview to SPUC headquarters in London about the proceedings of this meeting. Far from being a balanced and fair exchange of views, Pat told us that:

“4 panels spoke during the meeting. Three panels had 3 speakers, and one panel had 2 speakers. They were all pro-abortion. The panels were completely unbalanced. This is the sort of thing that brings the UN into disrepute. The vast majority of the NGOs who spoke were pro-life.”

Pat told us that, due to time constraints;

“I didn’t have time to present the whole statement. I wanted to underline the right to life of the unborn, so I presented these sections (emboldened below) as the most important.”

At the time of writing this post, the day of comment is still underway. Pat will be reporting further on this meeting and the final outcomes. We are very grateful to Pat and fellow pro-life NGOs who are speaking up boldly and unequivocally in defence of the unborn and their fundamental and inherent right to life. Below is Pat's statement in full:

Mr. Chairman, my name is Patrick Buckley, I represent the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. I have already submitted a paper on behalf of my organisation challenging the right of this committee to draw up a general comment on a term not used in the carefully crafted wording of the Convention.

We say in addition that the right to life of all human beings from the moment of conception to natural death, is protected in the bill of rights consisting of the UN Charter, the Universal declaration of Human Rights and the subsequently enacted Covenants and other legally binding Conventions.

We also say that the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognizes human rights during the entire pre-natal period of life.

First the preamble of the CRC expressly says that children need rights while they are in the pre-natal period of their life-cycle and this follows on from the original 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child:

“the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

The CRC having used the term child in its preamble in respect of a human life before as well as after birth in Article 1 defines the word child as all “human beings” who are under 18 years of age (unless the State sets a lower age limit).

The right to health, in Article 24 is for the benefit of the child who is the rights holder under the convention and expressly gives children rights during the entire pre-natal period.

When Article 1 is read in the light of Article 24, “human being” covers children during the entire pre-natal period, that is to say, from conception onwards. Article 24 reads:

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest atainable standard of health …

2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: …

The child is the right-holder of the right to pre-natal care, not the mother, according to the text of Article 24: States Parties recognize the right of the child … to pre-natal … care.

The fact that the text says “pre-natal …health care for mothers” (emphasis added) does not convert the right into the right of the mother. By definition, pre-natal care is medical care that is delivered to the mother’s body. The care to the child is delivered through actions directed at the mother’s body.

In other words, the child has the right to have health care given to his or her mother, for the purpose of ensuring the child’s well-being.

We also say that it is the duty of this committee to implement this Convention in accordance with the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which sets out interpretive norms for all treaties.

Article 31 of the VCLT says: "A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose."
In other words, attention must be paid to the actual text of the treaty and, as an aid to interpretation, to its surrounding context.

We say that there is no such right as a right to abortion, no right to take innocent human life and there never can be such a right. We also call on this Committee to reject pressure from powerful international organizations, which derive huge financial benefit from the taking of human life.

Finally we reiterate that this committee is not empowered to reinterpret the terms of the Convention and we further assert that there is no room for ideological crusades on the part of the Committee in attempting to expand the scope of the convention whilst ignoring the plight of the most vulnerable human beings, babies once conceived and awaiting birth.

"I have recommended that it also be held in parishes, religious communities, associations and movements. The period in which we prepare for Christmas is an appropriate time to invoke divine protection on every human being called into existence, and to thank God for the gift of life we received from our parents".

I would urge all my visitors to contact their parish priests and their bishops to ask that the Pope's request be publicized and promoted to the greatest possible extent. Here is a list of some related events and useful resources. This list is by no means complete - do email me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk if you have more information about related events and resources.

Catholic diocese of Hexham and Newcastle
27 November, 4-5pm: Vigil of prayer for unborn life before the Blessed Sacrament, St Mary's Cathedral. Scripture Rosary for life and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Catholic diocese of Middlesborough
27 November: At St Mary's cathedral there will be Eucharistic adoration at 3pm, opportunity for the Sacrament of Penance and at 6.30pm vigil Mass for the first Sunday of Advent

Catholic diocese of Salford
27 November: Terence Brain, bishop of Salford, is asking all churches in Salford diocese to a period of exposition of the Blessed Sacrament; and for those churches which have a Sunday vigil Mass to have a special prayer of intercession for all nascent human life.

" ... the second car rally was ... an important step in the pursuit of the protection of children’s lives. We have, hopefully, pursuaded our followers to be more proactive in organizing pro-life rallies in all Russian regions ... the Moscow road police tried to stop our “cortege” four times. Without success. Each time we convinced the policemen that our action was perfectly peaceful and absolutely legal.

"In the end, the pro-life motorcade has successfully passed through the city fully in accordance with the route we planned. In the same way we will do our best to make changes in the laws and to stop the infanticide in our dying out country and also in all countries of the world. We would like to thank heartily all participants of our rally. With our joint efforts, once again we have said in a loud voice: STOP to Abortions!"

Saturday, 13 November 2010

Frances Inglis, who murdered her brain-damaged son Thomas, yesterday lost her appeal against her conviction and life sentence (though the Court of Appeal did reduce the minimum period before eligibility to apply for parole). Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, has reviewed the judgment and he tells me that its details contain a fascinating revelation into how euthanasia works in practice. Anthony highlights Mrs Inglis' firm belief that it was her son Thomas should be killed because (according to her):

"she knew what Thomas's wishes would have been"

"he did not have the quality of life he wanted"

"it would be better if he were dead"

he was now "a vegetable"; and

he had in fact "died" in the accident which left him brain-damaged.

Anthony also highlights the idea, raised by Thomas' doctors, that the hospital could approach the courts for permission to kill Thomas by euthanasia by omission ("withhold[ing] treatment, and nutrition and hydration", an idea which Mrs Inglis rejected as "barbaric".

Anthony highlighted, as others did, the following statement by the presiding judge as perhaps the most significant:

"We must also emphasise that the law does not recognise the concept implicit in the defence statement that Thomas Inglis was "already dead in all but a small physical degree". The fact is that he was alive, a person in being. However brief the time left for him, that life could not lawfully be extinguished. Similarly, however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person. Thomas's condition made him especially vulnerable, and for that among other reasons, whether or not he might have died within a few months anyway, his life was protected by the law, and no one, not even his mother, could lawfully step in and bring it to a premature conclusion."

SPUC's bioethical experts will analyse and comment further on this fascinating judgment.

Friday, 12 November 2010

I have just received the message below from my pro-life colleague, Scott Fischbach, the executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life:

"I am in the middle of a four-country visit to East Africa and just finished up a 3 day conference in Dar Es Salaam. At our conference there was one set of fetal models as seen below, sent by SPUC years ago. The lady who brought them told me many lives have been saved by women looking at them. Notice the box is a real mess after all these years, but the models are pristine. SPUC is saving lives in Tanzania -- good on ya! Scott".

Yes Scott! As you say, the box (photograph from Scott, above) is a mess. If you're reading this post, please send me the lady's address and we'll send her a new set with our compliments*.

MCCL is a US pro-life group which, in my experience, has often been in the vanguard of important developments in the pro-life movement. I learned a great deal from them for SPUC's work when I visited their offices over 25 years ago.

Scott is now leading a pro-life speaking tour in Africa which, MCCL notes "is under siege from pro-abortion forces from all corners of the world". He and his team are meeting African leaders to discuss what can be done to resist the "enormous pressure on African countries to abandon the protections they have in place for the unborn and their mothers" - not least pressures from the US Obama administration which is committing to promoting legalized abortion on demand in every country of the world; and pressures from the UK, where David Cameron and his government have made the promotion of abortion a fundamental plank of the government's overseas development policy.

And congratulations are due to the Fischbach family. Michelle, Scott's wife, has just assumed the presidency of the Minnesota Senate.

*"How You Began", produced by the SPUC educational research trust, is an anatomically accurate teaching aid that allows students to see, feel and touch the unborn child. It comprises five extremely realistic models designed and manufactured under the expert guidance of a team of leading foetal authorities including obstetricians and gynaecologists, pathologists and other experts in anatomy and embryology. In the classroom, the models are an ideal teaching aid for use at all Key stages. The models can be used in GPs' surgeries and ante-natal classes to enable pregnant women to understand what physical changes are taking place. They are also ideal for use in teaching embryology, obstetrics and gynaecology, and anatomy. They can be ordered here.

85. ... Fidelity to God’s word leads us to point out that nowadays this institution [marriage] is in many ways under attack from the current mentality[,] the rise of ways of thinking which trivialize the human body ... The great mystery of marriage is the source of the essential responsibility of parents towards their children. Part of authentic parenthood is to pass on and bear witness to the meaning of life in Christ: through their fidelity and the unity of family life, spouses are the first to proclaim God’s word to their children.

“The moral sphere has been confined to the subjective field...In order to invert this tendency, a generic call to values is not enough ... [Y]our decision to remind everyone who cares about the city of man and the welfare of new generations of their education responsibilities seems particularly appropriate. This vital alliance can only start with a renewed closeness to families, recognising and supporting their primary role in education. It is in families that the face of a people is forged".

"I prayed intensely for families, the vital cells and the hope of society and of the Church ... My thoughts also went to the young, ... that they may discover the beauty, value and commitment of marriage in which a man and a woman form a family which generously accepts life and accompanies it from conception until natural end. Everything done to support marriage and the family, to help people in need, everything that serves to enhance man's greatness and his inviolable dignity, also helps to perfect society".

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.